Threadlinqs IntelligenceStart free

Weakness · ClassCWE-119

CWE-119: Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

Likelihood of exploit: HighKEV-linkedClass

As of 2026-10-05, CWE-119 (Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) underlies 34 CVEs tracked by Threadlinqs, 12 of them in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and is cited by 43 tracked threats. MITRE rates its likelihood of exploit as High.

CVEs
34Mapped to CWE-119
CISA KEV
12Exploited in the wild
Critical
12CVSS v3 critical CVEs
Threats
43Tracked campaigns citing it
Likelihood
HighMITRE likelihood of exploit

Last updated:

What is CWE-119?

The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.

CWE-119 is a class-level weakness in MITRE’s Common Weakness Enumeration, with a MITRE likelihood of exploit of High. Applicable platforms: Language: Memory-Unsafe; Language: C; Language: C++; Language: Assembly; Technology: Not Technology-Specific.

Source: MITRE CWE (CWE-119 definition, reproduced verbatim). Counts and linkage below are Threadlinqs data.

Consequences

  • Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability — Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Modify Memory. If the memory accessible by the attacker can be effectively controlled, it may be possible to execute arbitrary code, as with a standard buffer overflow. If the attacker can overwrite a pointer's worth of memory (usually 32 or 64 bits), they can alter the intended control flow by redirecting a function pointer to their own malicious code. Even when the attacker can only modify a single byte arbitrary code execution can be possible. Sometimes this is because the same problem can be exploited…
  • Availability, Confidentiality — Read Memory, DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU), DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory). Out of bounds memory access will very likely result in the corruption of relevant memory, and perhaps instructions, possibly leading to a crash. Other attacks leading to lack of availability are possible, including putting the program into an infinite loop.
  • Confidentiality — Read Memory. In the case of an out-of-bounds read, the attacker may have access to sensitive information. If the sensitive information contains system details, such as the current buffer's position in memory, this knowledge can be used to craft further attacks, possibly with more severe consequences.

Source: MITRE CWE, common consequences.

How CWE-119 is exploited in the wild

Threadlinqs maps 34 CVEs to CWE-119, published between 2008-10-23 and 2026-10-04. 12 are listed in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, the authoritative record of exploitation in the wild, and 4 are tied to ransomware campaigns. By CVSS v3 severity the set splits into 12 critical, 9 high, 8 medium, 4 low. The highest EPSS score in the set is 94.3% (CVE-2017-11882), the modelled probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. 43 tracked threats reference CWE-119 directly or through a CVE it covers; the most recent is “CISA adds Citrix NetScaler SAML memory overflow DoS (CVE-2026-88779) to KEV Catalog” (2026-10-04). Affected products concentrate in Apple (5), FastStone (4), Microsoft (4), among 23 vendors in total.

Vulnerabilities (CVEs)

All 34 CVEs mapped to CWE-119, CISA KEV first, then by CVSS score.

  • CVE-2008-4250 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 92.0% · published 2008-10-23
  • CVE-2025-31200 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 18.5% · published 2025-04-16
  • CVE-2025-7775 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 5.7% · published 2025-08-26
  • CVE-2023-4966 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.4 critical · EPSS 94.3% · published 2023-10-10
  • CVE-2009-3459 — CISA KEV · CVSS 8.8 high · EPSS 88.0% · published 2009-10-13
  • CVE-2017-6742 — CISA KEV · CVSS 8.8 high · EPSS 6.7% · published 2017-07-17
  • CVE-2025-14174 — CISA KEV · CVSS 8.8 high · EPSS 0.9% · published 2025-12-12
  • CVE-2026-3910 — CISA KEV · CVSS 8.8 high · EPSS 0.6% · published 2026-03-13
  • CVE-2025-31277 — CISA KEV · CVSS 8.8 high · EPSS 0.1% · published 2025-07-30
  • CVE-2017-11882 — CISA KEV · CVSS 7.8 high · EPSS 94.3% · published 2017-11-15
  • CVE-2026-20700 — CISA KEV · CVSS 7.8 high · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-02-11
  • CVE-2026-88772 — CISA KEV · published 2026-09-27
  • CVE-2026-94089 — CVSS 10 critical · EPSS 0.9% · published 2026-09-20
  • CVE-2026-79911 — CVSS 10 critical · EPSS 0.6% · published 2026-08-25
  • CVE-2026-82592 — CVSS 9.9 critical · EPSS 0.7% · published 2026-08-30
  • CVE-2026-19959 — CVSS 9.9 critical · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-08-16
  • CVE-2026-19961 — CVSS 9.9 critical · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-08-16
  • CVE-2016-5681 — CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 11.9% · published 2016-08-25
  • CVE-2026-8452 — CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-06-30
  • CVE-2026-8655 — CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-06-30
  • CVE-2023-4967 — CVSS 8.2 high · EPSS 0.8% · published 2023-10-27
  • CVE-2026-15506 — CVSS 7.8 high · EPSS 0.1% · published 2026-07-12
  • CVE-2026-96676 — CVSS 6.3 medium · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-09-23
  • CVE-2026-101202 — CVSS 6.3 medium · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-09-28
  • CVE-2026-101203 — CVSS 6.3 medium · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-09-28
  • CVE-2026-101204 — CVSS 6.3 medium · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-09-28
  • CVE-2026-101205 — CVSS 6.3 medium · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-09-28
  • CVE-2026-90831 — CVSS 5.3 medium · EPSS 0.1% · published 2026-09-14
  • CVE-2026-82591 — CVSS 5.3 medium · EPSS 0.1% · published 2026-08-30
  • CVE-2026-82587 — CVSS 4.3 medium · published 2026-08-30
  • CVE-2026-78049 — CVSS 3.7 low · EPSS 0.6% · published 2026-08-22
  • CVE-2026-19955 — CVSS 3.5 low · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-08-16
  • CVE-2026-86227 — CVSS 3.1 low · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-09-06
  • CVE-2026-105164 — CVSS 2.7 low · published 2026-10-04

Affected vendors

Threat activity

43 tracked threats cite CWE-119; the 25 most recent are listed.

Mitigations

  • Requirements / Language Selection: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
  • Architecture and Design / Libraries or Frameworks: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation / Environment Hardening: Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
  • Implementation: Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory: Double check that the buffer is as large as specified. When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string. Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space. If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.
  • Operation, Build and Compilation / Environment Hardening: Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code. Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would…
  • Operation / Environment Hardening: Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment. For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
  • Implementation: Replace unbounded copy functions with analogous functions that support length arguments, such as strcpy with strncpy. Create these if they are not available.

Source: MITRE CWE, potential mitigations.

Detection methods (MITRE CWE)

  • Automated Static Analysis (effectiveness: High): This weakness can often be detected using automated static analysis tools. Many modern tools use data flow analysis or constraint-based techniques to minimize the number of false positives. Automated static analysis generally does not account for environmental considerations when reporting out-of-bounds memory operations. This can make it difficult for users to determine which warnings should be investigated first. For example, an analysis tool might report buffer overflows that originate from…
  • Automated Dynamic Analysis: This weakness can be detected using dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the software using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The software's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
  • Automated Dynamic Analysis (effectiveness: Moderate): Use tools that are integrated during compilation to insert runtime error-checking mechanisms related to memory safety errors, such as AddressSanitizer (ASan) for C/C++ [REF-1518].
  • Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Binary / Bytecode Quality Analysis Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
  • Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
  • Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database Scanners
  • Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer
  • Manual Static Analysis - Source Code (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)

Source: MITRE CWE, detection methods. Threadlinqs detection rules for the threats above are Blue tier and higher.